Apple and Amazon?

[bbc]

Originally posted by soosy
I think (hope) this means that you'll have an option to buy the physical cd along with the digital downloads. That would rock!!!!!! I've seen several people suggest this already.
The joy of immediate downloading along with full cover art and option to rip at higher rates/different formats in the future.

This was my thought also. It makes extreme sense. Right now you can buy an album's worth of music, downloaded immediately, for $10. For just a few more dollars ($5?), you should be able to receive later by slow mail the matching physical album. I say $5 because you've already paid the royalties and transaction costs, so all you are paying for is the CD, the case, the cover art, the handling, the shipping, and profit for Amazon. (Okay, maybe that all wouldn't fit in $5.) Maybe the album would even ship bundled with whatever else you were receiving from Amazon that day, to save on shipping.

You wouldn't have to digitize the album yourself, You wouldn't have to wait to have it digitized. So, it is a different product than just picking up the album yourself at the local record store. Yet, you would eventually get the album itself for its archival/artwork/trophy value.

 

[Grimace]

Okay, if those two are being paired in business - I think we'll see an PPC970 powered Segway with iTunes installed (standard of course,) and in the old colors of tangerine etc.

 

[maradong]

now that would be so great. beeing on amazone, and , releasing a client for windows. man, it can t become better...

 

[tychay]

The FairPlay DRM is not contained in iTunes, it is contained in QuickTime. iTunes is the only interface currently that activates/deactives the DRM.

This is also why you can include purchased music in your iMovies, burn them to CDs with Roxio Toast, and a myriad of other uses that you can't easily do with any other purchased downloaded music (without the extra step of reripping).

I don't see any reason why this (FairPlay being in QuickTime) won't also be true for Windows. This means you won't be required to use iTunes Windows except when purchasing the music. However, you would be required to have QuickTime (the free, non-pro one). In this scenario, the MP3 jukebox would only have to hook into the QuickTime API to play back the FairPlay protected AACs.

 

[Unicron]

Good move to stop MS/Amazon

This is important for nothing else if to put a roadblock to Microsoft's music store.

I can also see Amazon having iTMS' "buy now 99¢" button by many song listings for CDs. They already have "buy used" option for CDs, so Amazon isn't totally focused on selling new merchandise (because they take a slice from the used sales). Similarly, I can see Amazon taking a small cut of any iTMS sales through its website.

Also, Amazon's support would hopefully accelerate AAC adoption in consumer electronics (CD players, DVD players, etc).

 

[deepkid]

Originally posted by aub32
True, 97% of most users will not notice a difference in the encoded quality of AAC and MP3 encoded at a higher bitrate.

My argument is that some artists (U2, Coldplay, other larger artists) actually sound better than smaller artists that I've downloaded, such as Queens of the Stone Age, Earshot and Bloodhound Gang, for instance. Its as if they're encoded differently, although they all say 128kbit AAC.

I've not read the whole thread yet, but one thing I fail to see mentioned when debating encode quality is the original masters.

If the original recordings weren't engineered "properly", then no other format will sound good unless there is tweaking done first.

So if you're expecting Jimmy Hendrix recordings to sound pristine without some additional mastering, you're thinking about this all the wrong way.

If you're comparing a cd copy to an AAC provided by Apple and expect them to sound the same, you're expecting too much.

This probably has more to do with the record companies than the codec.

 

[deepkid]

Re: WinAmp - AAC - Should be soon...

Originally posted by Malic
As an aside, he also tells me that SomaFM.com is very interested in supporting AAC streams and seriously looking into it.

...an idea which I am absolutely thrilled over!

Yes! I love Groove Salad.

 

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by reedm007
Just to clarify, it's not the NYT, It's the New York Post... Which, I'd argue, is somewhat less reliable than the New York Times.

You know, until 2 or 3 weeks ago, I would have agreed with you on that...

 

[Malic]

Re: Re: WinAmp - AAC - Should be soon...

Originally posted by deepkid
Yes! I love Groove Salad.

Every month I am always thinking to myself, "Gotta find stuff to sell on eBay to 'recharge' my PayPal account 'cause Rusty needs money!"

 

[daveg5]

great

this is what many of the 20 million pre mac osx users (8.6-9.2.2) have been asking for, a web portal to the itunes music store, even if there is an extra 2 or 3 steps to sync it to your ipod. from download folderthen convert from aac to mp3 then to itunes to ipod.
now if apple would update quicktime for mac 8.6-9.2.2 to read aac like it does for windows 98. this is a win win for Apple more ipods sold more, music sold, more profit, more money, better research, faster better computers.
if not one of the other online music sellers will beat them to the punch and grab apples non osx 20 million strong community.

 

[Foocha]

Everything that SJ has said on the subject of iTMS indicates that Apple sees it as integral with iTunes - heck even the name. If they intended to have a Web alternative, I doubt they would have called in iTunes music store. This is the reason when they're investing so much in developing a Windows version of iTunes.

Amazon may become a distribution partner with Apple on iTMS, but it think this will involve driving people to download iTunes, not distributing AAC files via the Amazon site directly.

 

[cgmpowers]

Apple and Amazon

If I were Apple, I'd do everything but sell my soul to exclusively sell my Music on Amazon for PC & Mac users..

iTunes 4.0.x for the PC maybe nearer than farther away--but regardless, tie it in with Amazon & if it can increase the amount of music from 120,000+ songs to maybe 600,000+ songs...then do it!!

Amazon has been extremely successful, Apple is proving their music is extremely successfull....and the dogs of MS & AOL are bitting at your ankles...

Do it...Apple/Amazon...do it!!

Christopher

p.s. Also make it easier/or automatic to add album covers to your ripped music. Synergy does a good job playing your iTunes & displaying album covers via Amazon...but you still have to manual drag the photos into iTunes. Amazon and iTunes merge, make this an automatic process!!

 

[AppleMatt]

Interesting...Steve Jobs mentioned amazon and their one click buying in the presentation he gave about the music store...

anyway, I'm all for this, Apple should team up with as many big-players as it can.

AppleMatt

 

[j763]

Originally posted by Foocha
Everything that SJ has said on the subject of iTMS indicates that Apple sees it as integral with iTunes - heck even the name. If they intended to have a Web alternative, I doubt they would have called in iTunes music store. This is the reason when they're investing so much in developing a Windows version of iTunes.

Amazon may become a distribution partner with Apple on iTMS, but it think this will involve driving people to download iTunes, not distributing AAC files via the Amazon site directly.

Agreed. Amazon could have a "BUY SONG" link right next to each song, which would then open that up in iTunes (this is possible, Apple's already got the URI's set up). Amazon could take a cut for all of the click throughs, Apple would no longer be faced with competition from Amazon and iTunes would become more popular.

 

[AndrewMT]

Good, good. Just get on it, Apple. They need to have a windows version of the Apple store as soon as possible. Having the music store somehow involved with amazon would really help spread the word that Apple's music store is both a valid and strong alternative to, well, everything else. Just do it! Now!

 

[bbc]

Originally posted by bbc
... Right now you can buy an album's worth of music, downloaded immediately, for $10. For just a few more dollars ($5?), you should be able to receive later by slow mail the matching physical album.

Replying to myself, I think I know a better way to price and pitch this item (i.e. a physical album mailed to you plus available for immediate download). The price would be whatever Amazon would charge for the physical album, plus a premium for the services that the iTMS provides (preview, encoding, download). Treat it like a premium service, above the normal cost of just buying music from Amazon, for those who want to save money by buying from Amazon, but cannot wait to have the music in their pocket. (Plus, you can then offset the extra charge for the download with cheaper&slower shipping, since your need to hear the music ASAP has been satisfied.) So maybe an additional dollar or two over the normal cost of the album, to have the "instant gratification" of downloading what Amazon will ship to you, plus to avoid any work in getting it from CD into your iPod/whatever.

This also dodges the "how to ship it" problem. You pick whatever shipping you want from Amazon.
It doesn't have to come 4th class.

Of course, if you cancel your Amazon order, you're still going to pay the $10 for the download...

 

[BobX]

Setting the DRM Standard for the Industry?

I just don't get it. I can only see two possibilities:

1. Apple and Amozon limit themselves to cross marketting and little more (may be cross promoting the physical CD and the corresponding digitial music).

2. Amazon licenses Apple's FairPlay and becomes an independent music distributor just like it sells CD... except the music will be sold in digital form and DRM'ed via FairPlay.

#1 is most likely and requires the least effort, #2 is more significant longer term because Apple's would have recruited one more supporter to the MP4/FairPlay camp. This would signify that Apple is going for the "standard setting" route of trying to "establish a platform" that many indeoendent digital music distributors can use to sell music. Frankly, I'd rather see Apple push the QuickTime/FairPlay standard platform to the industry rather than trying to corner the music distribution business by itself -- else Microsoft may one day own the standard and we would have to rely on MS technology to download any DRM'ed digital media. Microsoft has proven adept at establishing de facto standards and then make every body conform to that standard. I am not a pro-Apple Microsoft-hater, but I see Microsoft's potential monopoly ownership of DRM standards in the future a threat to all consumers in general.

 

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by j763
Agreed. Amazon could have a "BUY SONG" link right next to each song, which would then open that up in iTunes (this is possible, Apple's already got the URI's set up).

And vice-versa: The iTMS could have a "buy CD" button that takes you to amazon, who would send the physical cd out to you.

I'd also like to see reviews and artist info incorporated into the iTMS... maybe from amazon or allmusic.com. Just a thought.

 

[kimble]

Quicktime on Windows

Actually, it just occurred to me that a side effect of having ITMS on windows is that it will require Quicktime. What a great way to get Quicktime installed on millions of PCs! If the store is successful, it may also encourage web sites to start providing more quicktime content instead of in Real or MS WM format....

 

[gotohamish]

Re: Even better news!

Originally posted by Malic
It just occured to me - if Amazon is tied in with Apple TMS, and AAC/m4a/m4p as a result, could this spell the end of Real Audio use for album samples on Amazon!?

Ooooooo! Warm and fuzzy feelings follow...

Very interesting point - Amazon wants Apple's service. Apple wants Amazon's streaming.

 

[merges]

Originally posted by aub32
Hope they up the data rate on the songs before hitting the general (PC) public. Some of the 128k songs sound watery.

I'm not sure if you're listening to previews only, but FYI, the previews are not all full-quality, as advertised. Many of the previews are decidedly lower in quality than the downloaded songs.

For instance, "December" by Collective Soul (all versions on the iTMS) sounds "watery" (full of audible compression artifacts) in its preview, but the downloaded song sounds much clearer and free of audio garbling.

 

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by merges
I'm not sure if you're listening to previews only, but FYI, the previews are not all full-quality, as advertised. Many of the previews are decidedly lower in quality than the downloaded songs.

For instance, "December" by Collective Soul (all versions on the iTMS) sounds "watery" (full of audible compression artifacts) in its preview, but the downloaded song sounds much clearer and free of audio garbling.

I believe you on your point, but am curious whether Apple state this anywhere on the store - I'm in the UK so haven't given it a great deal of look (that would be a tease)...

 

[comrade]

Originally posted by groovebuster
I had the same effect and was wondring about it... since AAC was supposed to be so superior...

Apple seems to think the general population doesn't mind this quality. It's just like how they suggest a 160 kbps mp3 as the default setting. I perfer 192. With AAC a 160 kbps sounds good to me. The problem is, if most people don't notice the difference, then you are SOL. Another reason I don't have any use for the music service.

 

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by comrade
Apple seems to think the general population doesn't mind this quality. It's just like how they suggest a 160 kbps mp3 as the default setting. I perfer 192. With AAC a 160 kbps sounds good to me. The problem is, if most people don't notice the difference, then you are SOL. Another reason I don't have any use for the music service.

Maybe Apple are trying to compromise by offering a medium sound quality, but bringing people in my the convenience and exclusive tracks (which are mostly UK b-sides it seems anyway - good all the same).

 

[Sonofhaig]

Originally posted by reedm007
Just to clarify, it's not the NYT, It's the New York Post... Which, I'd argue, is somewhat less reliable than the New York Times.

And I'll disagree with that.
But either way (Back on subject), a hook-up between Apple and Amazon
sounds like a smart way to keep the ball rolling until Windows version, and International get on board.....